Spike Protein Detoxification Protocol: A Step-by-Step Guide to Supporting Cellular Health with Nattokinase, Bromelain, and Curcumin
An Accessible Approach to Clearing Proteins from the Body Using Over-the-Counter Supplements, Including Dosage, Duration, and Tracking Tips
Dr. Peter A. McCullough’s COVID-19 Vaccine Detoxification Protocol
A Guide to COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein Persistence Recovery
Step 1: Understanding the Protocol
This guide introduces a detoxification protocol aimed at helping the body clear a particular protein from cells and tissues using natural substances. These substances—nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin—are accessible over the counter.
Step 2: Gather the Necessary Supplements
You will need three natural supplements:
Nattokinase – An enzyme derived from the fermentation of soy.
Bromelain – A set of enzymes from pineapple stems, FDA-approved for topical wound treatment.
Curcumin – An active compound derived from turmeric.
Step 3: Dosage Guidelines
Follow these specific dosage instructions for each supplement:
Nattokinase: Take 2,000 units twice daily.
Bromelain: Take 500 mg once daily.
Curcumin: Take 500 mg three times daily.
Step 4: Set a Timeline
Minimum Duration: Continue for at least 3 months.
Extended Duration: For individuals who have had multiple exposures, consider continuing for 12 months or longer.
Step 5: Source Your Supplements
You can find these supplements at natural food stores, pharmacies, or online retailers. Ensure you purchase high-quality versions from reputable sources.
Step 6: Track Your Progress
Keep a daily record of your dosages and any effects you observe. This can help you assess the protocol’s impact over time.
This guide provides a foundation to follow the detox protocol described.
As always, it’s recommended to consult a healthcare professional before starting any new supplement regimen, especially if you have preexisting conditions or are on medication.
A Closer Look at COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Debate: An In-Depth Analysis of Claims Made in the “Cureus” Article on mRNA Vaccine Risks
Introduction
This report provides an in-depth analysis of the claims made by M. Nathaniel Mead, Dr. Peter A. McCullough, and colleagues in their January 24, 2024, article, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign,” published in Cureus. The authors question the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s mRNA-1273, based on interpretations of all-cause mortality data, adverse event reporting, vaccine efficacy, and long-term safety risks. These claims have sparked intense debate, especially given recent calls for the article’s retraction by Springer Nature.
Claims Made in the Article
1. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and All-Cause Mortality (ACM)
The authors argue that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are associated with either no reduction or a potential increase in all-cause mortality (ACM). They reference studies suggesting a correlation between higher vaccination rates and subsequent increases in mortality.
Key Evidence Cited:
Benn et al. (2022): This analysis reportedly found that mRNA vaccines did not reduce ACM.
Quote from Article: “All reviewers agreed that the Benn et al. analysis showed the mRNA vaccinations did not lead to a reduction in overall mortality.”
Aarstad and Kvitastein (2022): The authors cite this study of 31 European countries, which they claim found a “positive correlation” between COVID-19 vaccination rates and ACM in 2022.
Quote from Article: “Each percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination coverage was associated with a 0.105% increase (95% CI 0.075-0.134) in monthly mortality during 2022.”
Rancourt et al. (2023): In response to reviewers, the authors emphasized this 180-page analysis, which they claim demonstrates a link between booster rollouts and spikes in ACM.
Quote from Article: “Booster rollouts synchronously followed by peaks in all-cause mortality indicate a disturbing trend warranting further investigation.”
Authors’ Conclusion: The authors argue that this ACM data indicates a need for caution, contending that vaccines’ role in increasing mortality, even if indirectly, challenges public health narratives on their safety.
2. VAERS Data and Safety Signals
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a central focus in the authors’ argument, with the article claiming significant “safety signals” for adverse events, such as myocarditis and autoimmune disorders, following mRNA vaccinations.
Key Evidence Cited:
Autoimmune Disorders: The authors report an 803% increase in autoimmune disorders per million doses following COVID-19 vaccinations compared to influenza vaccines from 2018–2020.
Quote from Article: “Based on a query of the MedDRA code ‘Autoimmune disorder’…an 803% increase in autoimmune disorders per million doses administered…represents an immense safety signal.”
Myocarditis in Youth: They present data on myocarditis, showing a five-fold increase in 15-year-old males following the second vaccine dose.
Quote from Article: “After dose two, there was a five-fold increase in myocarditis cases among 15-year-old males, suggestive of a causal link.”
Yan et al. (2022): The authors reference a disproportionality analysis by Yan and colleagues that found significant associations between COVID-19 vaccines and cardiovascular events.
Quote from Article: “A disproportionality analysis of VAERS data showed a statistically significant association between cardiovascular events and COVID-19 vaccinations.”
Authors’ Conclusion: The authors argue that the VAERS data provide a “strong safety signal,” suggesting potential risks of myocarditis, autoimmune responses, and other cardiovascular effects, which should be examined further.
3. Vaccine Efficacy and Durability of Immunity
The authors question the efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, specifically their ability to prevent severe COVID-19 over time and in light of evolving variants.
Key Evidence Cited:
Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data: They reference early trials showing a decline in vaccine efficacy within a few months, suggesting that initial efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 was short-lived.
Quote from Article: “While registrational trials showed initial efficacy, effectiveness declined sharply within months, requiring repeated boosters.”
Clalit Health Services Study (Israel): This study reportedly found that vaccine efficacy against infection waned over time, even with boosters.
Quote from Article: “Decreasing efficacy over time weakens the justification for broad, mandatory vaccination campaigns.”
Authors’ Conclusion: The authors argue that the short-lived protection, especially against infection, reduces the overall benefit of widespread booster doses and should prompt a reassessment of ongoing vaccine mandates.
4. Classification of mRNA Vaccines as Gene Therapy Products
The authors categorize mRNA vaccines as “gene therapy products” (GTPs), asserting that regulatory bodies should have applied gene therapy standards to these vaccines.
Key Evidence Cited:
Gene Therapy Technology Background: They argue that mRNA technology aligns with gene therapy principles, as the vaccines deliver synthetic mRNA to instruct cells to produce the spike protein, a mechanism similar to gene therapy.
Quote from Article: “COVID-19 mRNA products are also accurately termed gene therapy products (GTPs)…as synthetic mRNA directs cells to produce the antigenic spike protein.”
European Regulations: The authors mention that European regulators generally require vaccines to include an antigen, noting that mRNA vaccines do not contain an antigen but direct the body to produce it.
Quote from Article: “European regulations mandate the inclusion of an antigen…mRNA vaccines induce cellular production of spike protein, aligning with GTP mechanisms.”
Authors’ Conclusion: By categorizing mRNA vaccines as gene therapy, the authors highlight regulatory oversight issues, arguing that mRNA vaccines should have undergone more rigorous evaluations for potential long-term effects.
5. DNA Contamination in mRNA Vaccines
The authors raise concerns about potential DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which they suggest could pose genetic risks.
Key Evidence Cited:
McKernan et al. (2023) and Buckhaults et al.: Studies reportedly found DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vaccine vials, with quantities exceeding regulatory limits.
Quote from Article: “McKernan et al. found ‘high levels of DNA contamination’ in both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, far exceeding EMA and FDA thresholds.”
Integration Risks: They suggest that DNA contamination could potentially integrate into human cells, posing unknown genetic risks.
Quote from Article: “DNA contamination raises concerns due to the theoretical risk of integration into the human genome, particularly given that plasmid DNA sequences were detected.”
Authors’ Conclusion: They contend that stricter quality control measures are needed to monitor DNA contamination, as this represents a “potentially serious safety risk.”
6. Persistence of Spike Protein and Associated Risks
The authors express concerns about the spike protein’s persistence in the body post-vaccination, arguing that this may lead to inflammatory responses and autoimmune issues.
Key Evidence Cited:
Spike Protein Persistence: The article references studies, including one by Yonker et al., suggesting spike protein remains in circulation longer in vaccinated individuals who developed myocarditis.
Quote from Article: “Spike protein persistence, particularly in cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis, raises red flags regarding the vaccine’s long-term safety profile.”
Röltgen et al. (2023): They cite this study as evidence that vaccine mRNA and spike protein may persist in lymph nodes for up to 60 days, a finding they argue may explain adverse events.
Quote from Article: “Persistent presence of mRNA and spike protein in lymph nodes suggests a possible basis for the prolonged immune response and adverse effects.”
Authors’ Conclusion: The authors argue that prolonged spike protein presence could be linked to adverse reactions, suggesting that these potential risks warrant further investigation.
7. Regulatory Oversight and Ethical Concerns
The authors critique the rapid approval and broad distribution of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, asserting that traditional safety evaluations were bypassed.
Key Evidence Cited:
Fraiman et al. and Michels et al. Studies: These studies reanalyzed Pfizer’s trial data and reportedly found that adverse events were underreported or underestimated in initial reports.
Quote from Article: “Fraiman et al. found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs in vaccinated participants, raising questions about regulatory standards and transparency.”
Precautionary Principle: The authors argue that regulators failed to apply the “precautionary principle,” which calls for rigorous long-term studies, especially given the novelty of mRNA technology.
Quote from Article: “The regulatory process should have been more thorough given the unprecedented nature of mRNA technology, yet agencies expedited approval without requisite caution.”
Authors’ Conclusion
The authors contend that the rapid approval of mRNA vaccines, coupled with limited long-term data, represents a significant deviation from traditional regulatory standards, raising concerns about transparency and public health safeguards. They argue that regulatory agencies should have conducted more comprehensive safety studies and applied stricter oversight, particularly given the novelty and unique mechanisms of mRNA vaccine technology.
Summary of Authors’ Core Claims and Recommendations
The authors make several key claims in their article, emphasizing a need for caution, further investigation, and regulatory transparency around COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. These claims, backed by references to both peer-reviewed studies and emerging data, reflect the authors’ concerns over potential long-term risks, ethical issues, and gaps in regulatory oversight. The main points raised include:
Increased All-Cause Mortality (ACM): The authors argue that data from studies across multiple countries suggest a correlation between higher vaccination rates and increased ACM, questioning whether the benefits of mRNA vaccines are as pronounced as reported.
VAERS Safety Signals: They emphasize significant adverse event signals from VAERS data, including a sharp rise in autoimmune disorders and myocarditis, particularly among younger individuals. They view these signals as a warning for potential long-term cardiovascular and autoimmune effects.
Short-Lived Vaccine Efficacy: The authors argue that the vaccines’ effectiveness against severe COVID-19 wanes quickly, necessitating repeated boosters. They suggest that the limited duration of immunity challenges the rationale for ongoing booster campaigns.
mRNA Vaccines as Gene Therapy: They classify mRNA vaccines as “gene therapy products,” arguing that this classification aligns with the vaccines’ mechanism of action and that the vaccines should therefore undergo gene therapy regulatory standards.
DNA Contamination Risks: The authors raise concerns over studies indicating high levels of DNA contamination in some vaccine vials, warning that this could pose genetic risks and necessitate tighter quality control standards.
Spike Protein Persistence: They present data suggesting that spike protein may persist in the body and could be responsible for inflammatory responses and autoimmune reactions. This persistence, they argue, may be linked to adverse events observed in some vaccinated individuals.
Regulatory and Ethical Oversight: The authors conclude that traditional regulatory standards were bypassed in the approval process for mRNA vaccines. They call for more extensive long-term studies and adherence to the precautionary principle in vaccine safety evaluations.
Concluding Thoughts and Broader Implications
The Cureus article presents a highly critical view of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, challenging both the regulatory processes involved in their approval and the data supporting their safety and efficacy. While the authors acknowledge the role of vaccines in mitigating COVID-19, they argue that vaccine programs should prioritize individual safety and rigorously adhere to scientific standards, particularly in the face of new and rapidly developed medical technologies.
The authors’ defense against the threatened retraction by Springer Nature reflects broader concerns about scientific censorship, emphasizing the importance of open discourse and access to data, especially when public health is at stake. This debate underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing public health priorities with scientific transparency, regulatory rigor, and individual safety in the context of unprecedented pandemic response measures.
Written by: Chancellor Chambers, Founder and Lead Investigator, The Daily Disillusionment Report
Sources
Mead, M. N., McCullough, P. A., Seneff, S., Wolfinger, R., Rose, J., Denhaerynck, K., Kirsch, S. (2024). COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus, 16(1)
. doi:10.7759/cureus.52876.
Benn, C. S., Schaltz-Buchholzer, F., Nielsen, S., et al. (2022). Randomised clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?. Lancet Preprint. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4072489.
Aarstad, J., & Kvitastein, O. A. (2022). Is there a link between the 2021 COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe and 2022 excess all-cause mortality?. Asian Pac J Health Sci.
Rancourt, D. G., Baudin, M., Hickey, J., & Mercier, J. (2023). COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Mortality in the Southern Hemisphere. Correlation Research in the Public Interest.
Yan, M. M., Zhao, H., Li, Z. R., et al. (2022). Serious adverse reaction associated with the COVID-19 vaccines of BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, and mRNA-1273: gaining insight through the VAERS. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13:921760.